Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
there is a precedent. mk408. He was active mainly in one area only. after some edit war and unwilling to discuss with others he got blocked by DWG and then left for good. On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote: I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user like this, and I'm not eager to see one set. -mike. --- michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:30 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or even that I am able to offer it. What I AM able to do is be civil and use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss. There are plenty of other consensus understandings that might be loosely called rules which make up the fabric of OSM as a community. NE2 has again proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those. Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually being permanently banned. He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I am not optimistic he will be around much longer. But if the community wants him, that can emerge as a consensus as well. His better (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the usual messes he makes. He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy, which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors. I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least. I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either. SteveA California He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect him to discuss this issue here. We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past, which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no, some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if he were gone. I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave. -russ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: NE2 is going on the World according to NE2 bender again, need a ruling on this relation before I revert: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811 Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ. Despite left turn only markings on the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse that Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any such signs because you have not been there. Never mind that the left turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal standing of the marking since it omits ONLY, despite the fact that section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane). Who's right? You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction. And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider to contact him. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
I looked a bit more and in many jurisdiction it's illegal anyway to go around a traffic jam by exiting a freeway and go back direct on the next onramp. Even more reason to have a restriction. Tested Google maps and it will make a big detour to avoid this illegal straight on. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than NE2 could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust bug out to his area). On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll ascho...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.orgwrote: NE2 is going on the World according to NE2 bender again, need a ruling on this relation before I revert: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811 Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ. Despite left turn only markings on the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse that Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any such signs because you have not been there. Never mind that the left turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal standing of the marking since it omits ONLY, despite the fact that section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane). Who's right? You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction. And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider to contact him. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: Go Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I think it rocks. Yes it rocks! super easy usage and full functionality. I'd say the first osm editor with a good touch interface. Regards, Jeff * as in free beer! -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer osm: Historical OSMhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM / my OSM user page http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer t: @GWHAThistory https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory f: GWHAThistory https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store
have used Vespucci until a year ago. At that time the user interface was way to complicated. I know it has improved since but cant test anymore without a Android device. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried Vespucci and GoMap to compare for us? Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: Go Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I think it rocks. Yes it rocks! super easy usage and full functionality. I'd say the first osm editor with a good touch interface. Regards, Jeff * as in free beer! -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer osm: Historical OSMhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM / my OSM user page http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer t: @GWHAThistory https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory f: GWHAThistory https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store
have used Vespucci until a year ago. At that time the user interface was way to complicated. I know it has improved since but cant test anymore without a Android device. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried Vespucci and GoMap to compare for us? Janko ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would be great to make more tools support more external data sets as opposed to dumping *everything* into OSM. You want county borders on your garmin? Check a box while creating the file and mkgmap downloads the most recent county borders from some source that isn't OSM and includes them. Now, building this functionality into every tool that uses OSM data may not be practical. But I can definitely see a place for a parallel project that hosts all such boundary data (maybe even parcel data) from official sources in a common format and can be easily mixed with OSM data before being fed to existing tools. I think this was the idea behind CommonMap although I see this particular implementation hasn't fared particularly well as the domain seems to have expired... But the idea may warrant another look. Yes this is the way to go forward. We absolutely need multiple layers like in classic GIS. OSm is not the place for this. OSM was and is the opposite of a classic GIS. One area where I could provide support is Garmin maps. long time ago I have written a automated generation of contour lines. Same could be done for other sources like land ownership, NHD and many more. For example http://toposm.com/ uses NHD direct instead of any water from osm I don't have enough resources to host data for whole US and my time is currently very limited. If anyone wants to work on such a project and can host large data sets then I can offer to help setting up certain layers. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: How do you identify this? I know that some of the biggest improvements I've made to TIGER data in remote areas was to delete half of the data. If the TIGER2012 data hasn't changed a naive comparison will say that the 2012 data has twice the road length and is better, yet the OSM data is really better by virtue of paper roads having been deleted. full ack. Have done that myself in areas I visit and with the help of aerial pics. in many places this can reduce the total road length by 50% and most has to be downgraded to track. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Feature proposal: proposed expanded address tagging scheme for US
relations seem to be a elegant solution for people with technology background. And all your arguments are good ones BUT they have quite some disadvantages. Too many non techies have problems to get the concept right. As a result they break existing relations or they are scared away from editing osm. osm should be easy to use for many and creating a technology barrier for newcomers is dangerous. On top of that many editors have limited or broken support. As far as I know only JOSM and P2 have solid and well tested relation support. For a data consumer it's a challenge too. relations are a lot harder to process. And even if an application adds relation support it still can't drop the other scheme(s) On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Mark Gray mark-os...@hspf.com wrote: The discussion about how to tag a street name is important whether the tags are on the street or in an address. Can we move toward using relations instead of tagging the street name in each address? Copying the street name into each address is problematic. If we hope to some day have all addresses in OSM, I hope we can come up with a more efficient and consistent way to store a street name, however many tags are used for it, only once per section of same-named street. There are some proposals for how to do this with relations: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways All of these solve the street name duplication in each address and some also may solve name duplication across different ways of the street. In taginfo, I see there is already some use: 86023 instances of associatedStreet 14921 instances of Street This is still small compared with: 15461897 addr:street Every time I tag addr:street, I wonder how well it works. What will happen when someone decides to expand the name of the street or edit a prefix or suffix? How does an address stay associated with a street when the link between them, the name, can be edited in either place while no change is made to all the other things on this street? Each addr:street could contain its own unintentional variation of the street name. Now that we have embraced relations for highway routes, can we do something similar for street names in addresses? -- Mark Gray http://code.google.com/p/vataviamap/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright over their contributions then they'd be unable to legally contribute to OSM or any open mapping project regardless of the CTs. If someone is not working in a GIS field I can't see the courts considering that mapping they did on their own time as being the property of their employer. If they worked in a GIS field then it could get complicated, but none of this depends on the CTs. After working and living in Germany for many many years, and now moving back to the US and have been forced to deal with this issue. it seems that US corporations overreach on this issue and in some cases claim all copyright from employees. It is not just want you do at work or what is related to work but also to what you do in your free time. They can claim what they want. Even if you sign such a contract it is not valid. It's called employer and not slave driver. No court will enforce such a contract. As Paul mentioned this could be a problem if you work in the same kind of business and your contributions to osm could harm your employer or let them loos business. Also using company ressources and what you learn at your job can't be used for other projects or secondary jobs. similar with patents. If you invent anything related it's owned by the company but if you invent something entirely different in your free time then it's yours. On top of all this US law probably does not consider such contributions as protected by copyright at all. This has been discussed here over and over and Russ did repeat it just 1-2 weeks ago. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-at] AK-Routenplanertest
2012/8/10 David Schmitt da...@black.co.at On 2012-08-09 20:58, Apollinaris Schöll wrote: das gibts noch viel wildere Sachen. http://goo.gl/maps/hK2lM Da ist wirklich nur ein Bach und keine Spur von einem Weg. Und dann geht es noch mitten durch die Latschen. Nicht einmal zu Fuss macht das Sinn. Wirklich interessant woher die Daten kommen. Die sind garantiert in keiner anderen online oder offline Karte Dann sind alle Forstwege als ganz normale Strassen eingetragen. Dort ist aber praktisch immer Fahrverbot und meistens Schranken. z.B. http://goo.gl/maps/CALjx Ich tippe mal auf aus dem Ruder gelaufene Coputervisionalgorithmen. Ich kann auf dem Luftbild auch nicht erkennen ob da jetzt ein weg oder was läuft. Habe ich eigentlich auch angenommen. Am Luftbild sieht natürlich ein Bachbett einem Wanderweg zum verwechseln ähnlich. Aber woher dann der Name kommt ist sehr fragwürdig. Eigentlich auch egal wie das passiert ist. Und das ist kein Einzelfall und zeigt dass die Daten derzeit absoluter Müll sind. MfG David __**_ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-athttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] AK-Routenplanertest
2012/8/8 Boris Cornet bor...@osm-at.org Hallo! Dass Google gut abgeschnitten hat, kann nur auf einen Zufall beruhen. volle Zustimmung Wer sich herzlich über einen vollkommen idiotischen Vorschlag freuen möchte, der gebe bei maps.google.at Wattens und Mayrhofen (beide Tirol) ein und wähle dann den 2. Vorschlag (Innerberg). Laut Angaben der örtlichen Polizei ist die vorgeschlagene Route selbst mit dem Mountainbike nur schwer zu schaffen, ganz abgesehen davon, dass dort auf weiten Strecken Fahrverbot herrscht. Einige Teile der Route sind in OSM als path (!) getaggt. das gibts noch viel wildere Sachen. http://goo.gl/maps/hK2lM Da ist wirklich nur ein Bach und keine Spur von einem Weg. Und dann geht es noch mitten durch die Latschen. Nicht einmal zu Fuss macht das Sinn. Wirklich interessant woher die Daten kommen. Die sind garantiert in keiner anderen online oder offline Karte Dann sind alle Forstwege als ganz normale Strassen eingetragen. Dort ist aber praktisch immer Fahrverbot und meistens Schranken. z.B. http://goo.gl/maps/CALjx ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-us] Discardable TIGER tags
great idea, have done it manually from time to time when I edit tiger data. just adding my support after reading pro/con for certain tags. Ideally you can come up with a default list and users can extend it. On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Some people may not even be aware of this but JOSM silently discards the created_by tag if it exists on any object you change and upload to the API. This tag was deemed unnecessary and counterproductive a long time ago and this is just a way of cleaning it out of the database as people edit. Not sure if Potlatch does anything like this. What do you think about adding a couple of TIGER tags to be silently dropped? As more attributes get added to things in OSM the tag list can get kind of big and annoying to look through, especially when some of them are of no real value. Specifically, I try to always do a modified search in JOSM before I upload and remove the tiger:separated and tiger:upload_uuid tags from things I have touched. I believe the tiger:separated tag was set on all residential or higher roads. 98.6% of the values are no and most of them are on minor streets where it is not really an interesting value. On the remaining roads it seems, in my experience, to be wrong a majority of the time anyway. So I see no value in this tag. I believe Dave Hansen said the UUID tag was useful during the TIGER import process to verify things and fix problems but I see no value in it now. It is such a large value that it takes up about 1 GB of space in the (uncompressed XML) planet file according to my calculations. As stated above, this would only delete the tags on objects that you have already modified in some way, not on everything you download. Are there any other tags that people feel should be automatically discarded? tiger:tlid and tiger:county seem mildly useful. What about tiger:cfcc and tiger:source? I don't currently remove those from my changesets but don't really see too much use for them either. Not really sure about the zip code tags. They seem like they could be useful but I am not aware of anything that actually uses them. If there is agreement, I will submit a patch to the JOSM devs and reference this thread. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Highway ref again.
Hi, During fixing highways and interstates I came across a lot of inconsistent uses. I don't have a strong opinion in either direction. But we should at least map consistent. The wiki isn't consistent either. - multiple refs in tag with a semicolon: Many of them had been entered not too long ago and are clearly not a damage from the redaction. Wasn't the consensus to use relations? In the past I have only used the ref of the most important route on the way itself. This is what is rendered on all maps. secondary routes are only in the relation in case of overlaps. - state routes. In the past most states have been mapped with state number, now many refs have been changed to SR number. According to official documents in California SR is correct. road signs are mixed in California.Most common is number only but SR or state highway ore state route is possible too. BUT we have used the state number for so long and acrossmany states. should we really change? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Starting OSM Trail Map Initiative In US
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fred Gifford fred.giff...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, Initially the project would have two main focus areas – - Focused effort to gather public domain trail data and use it to update existing trail data in OSM through hybrid editing \ bulk upload methodology. please no bulk upload. public data isn't always up to date and really needs a review. if a trail is missing it's not a big deal when you have an additional option. But if you plan a long hike and a trail is no passable anymore it can be really dangerous. And special tags have to be verified on the ground. There is no way to do that as an armchair mapper. essentially quality is more important than quantity. Here is where things get a little different than other similar efforts – I want much of the work to be done by paid interns and I want to fund it initially through Kickstarter and later though donations. I recommend to search in the archives of t...@openstreetmap.org about opinions and experience with paid mapping. It's not very positive. I’d be interested to hear anyones thoughts, concerns, etc, and of course would love to know if anyone is interested in participating. I think it's important to get more people interested. especially from other outdoor related groups like Sierra club and other mountaineering clubs, geocacher. mountain biker ... These people understand the requirements. A paid intern with no hiking experience is of little use. Thanks. Fred ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Starting OSM Trail Map Initiative In US
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried to work with local hiking/mountain clubs on mapping trails? I know one guy from the sierra club. He is organizing hikes for the club year round and turns them into mapping parties for anyone interested. They go for a drink after the hike and he will show how to record tracks and add them to osm. It's mostly bay area and nearby. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary
Hi Steve Not sure what's the reason. After trying a couple of changes it still didn't work. Only changing to a relation was successful. Looks like boundaries are no longer rendered if they are defined on a way. I don't know enough about the rendering chain if there has been such a drastic change or if there is some bug. btw. josm has a plugin multipoly-convert which can do this easily. On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Hi again, Apo. Thanks for your good boundary fixes in Silicon Valley. We should hike again sometime. As a side-topic issue to Menlo Park Admin Boundary, the City Limits of Capitola, California (http://www.openstreetmap.org/**?way=33074173http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=33074173) simply disappeared from being rendered in mapnik/Standard after the last time I edited them, about six months ago. I'm befuddled as to why. SteveA California __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree: http://g.co/maps/e2gsv It's a normal roundabout. Tough normally a roundabout is signed. without any lane markings, no yield signs or other signs to tell how to pass trough one could argue it's entirely legal to take a direct left turn instead going around 270 degree. Then it's not more than a traffic calming structure What about this one? Also a full on roundabout? http://g.co/maps/d6n74 same as above This looks more like a roundabout to me: http://g.co/maps/hnbp9 yes definitely. -Nathan On 5/7/2012 8:46 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: This one surprised me, was pretty sure that the US didn't have real mini roundabouts, but I just spotted one in Burien, WA. http://g.co/maps/afh8m __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
